Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I would like to point out to everyone that considering the performance of a graphics card under Arma3 in terms of FPS without considering all the hardware involved and especially the processor can lead to biased conclusions.

In that case you can't compare performances of a rig based on a nice*, i7-4790K with some extra boost and a rig hosting an i9-9900K.

I will be quite interesting that matiasl after our discussions on the subject give us some feed back about how the monster is howling.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

While I couldn't observe any FPS gains in several games that can't really use additional cores of newer CPUs vs. overclocked older CPUs with fewer cores, frame time is often more consistant and a little bit lower. Same for newer GPus like GTX1080 vs. 2070.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You are right, we don't need all those extra cores in order to play Arma* ... what else ..., nevertheless the performance gap on one score between the nice old i7-4790K and the brand new i9-9900K is wide enough to justify not making predictions about the performance of the entire platform

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

@Groove_CNice... do you have a graph where all the CPUs were OC'ed to their max then compared?

I suspect even the 9600K - 6/6 cpu would equal the 9900k at the same clock speed. That is more telling for ARMA 3 users. My 4970K feels "slow" compared to those CPU now! :D

I did test DayZ SA during the free weekend... Loved the enfusion engine and Chernarus in that version but the game was lacking substance since there was no objective other than to stay alive as possible. I can't wait for Enfusion to come to ARMA 4 for a deeper experience.

Would be great to see DayZ SA performance compared in the same way for reference.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

About the 3 CPU's you mention, single thread benchmarks do seem to bear out your theory. The gulf between the 4790k (I have one) and the 9600k is about the same between the 9600k and the 9900k.

If you look at overall benchmarks, the 9900k is way ahead (based on multicore performance) but it's not really a gaming CPU. Sure it's turbo is impressive but it cannot sustain that for any longer than the cooling will allow. Theoretically, it can remain on boost indefinitely. Provided, presumably, you can get the heat away.

But the CPU doesn't tell the whole story. Our 4780ks are held back by DDR3 and the rest use DDR4. Arma 3 and even more so Enfusion based games are still moving around vast amounts of data and time and time again, we read here of users doing nothing more than installing faster memory for significant performance improvements. The myth that DDR4 latencies are not much better than DDR3 also doesn't help because the base clock of the 1151 motherboards means everything they do is faster. In other words, DDR4 is way faster than DDR3 in the real world.

I guess what I'm saying is; the more money you throw at a gaming PC, the better it will be. Who knew? :)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Oh yeah, I remember the mythical 5775c that was killed while being delidded less than a month after it's arrival. It goes to show that if you're ultracapable at the overclocking game, you can achieve some impressive results. Most of us, however.....

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

5775С is still very capable, because it's L4 cache bandwidth is to be added to the DDR3 bandwidth and this way the total bandwidth is very high and latencies are very low and the most of frames are produced inside these 128 MB L4 cache, lowering significantly the need of communication between CPU and RAM, resulting in lower and more even/consistent frametimes.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hello all! I am new to ARMA and have recently gotten Arma2 for christmas but most of my friends and recommendation say to go play arma3. I do not have a gaming laptop now, but I will this February and these are my two choices.

My preferences in game experience are: View Distance (for spotting, I am an air asset player)

and that's about it really XD

just joking, I'd love to get a decent fps too. 25+ is good enough for me and 30 is awesome.

For 5-7 FPS more (average / singleplayer / 1080p / ultra settings) that one would get with a 8700K/9700K/9900K is likely more due to 12/16 vs. 6/8 MB cache (i5/i7 3rd/4th gen) than because of additional cores/threads.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Once I will have an i7-5775C with 128 MB L4 cache we will see if 8700K/9700K/9900K or Ryzen have lower and more even/consistent frametimes because of more cores/threads or simply because of more cache (vs. Sandy/Ivy/Haswell/DC/Sky/Kaby)

2 headless clients / no script errors / no unnecessary scripts / corpses+wrecks+inventory items on the ground regularly cleaned depending on the number of players on the server.
Infantry+armor+paras+helis+jets reinforcements number and periodicity depending on the number of players on the server, AI casualties, which armor/air vehicles players have and how many and other factors.

Max number of vehicles/AI each player can buy depends on the number of players on the server.